so happy to to see so many people here. of course, this is always special when we have hwb brands back. i have the pleasure of introducing him. but first, just want to mention

that we have some very distinguished people in the audience. we have a member of the ford family, greg ford. we're so pleased, greg, that you came out this evening. thank you. we also have a trustee, david hooker, back there. thank you so much for your service, david. and of course, sitting next to him is his dad, bob hooker, who was on the board and taught david everything he knows. know so, so great to see you all these friends of ford, you know, you friends of four of the ones who make these programs possible. i'll say something about that in the wrap at the end of the evening. but right now, i want to introduce our distinguished speaker. bill brandes has been coming back to grand rapids a long time h w brands as you know, just been a prolific author and researcher, great teacher,

somebody, anybody who watches the history channel, it's people like bill brands that keep it from being called the hitler channel because he says so much about american history in such insightful ways and know if 2 a.m. and you can't sleep, you turn on the history channel. you probably you'll probably see bill you know he's helped me go back to sleep many a night now bill is always always insightful and i think that that you will find tonight particularly interesting. now bill and i always of have a little negotiation about what he's going speak about because we're going through the 50th anniversary of the ford right now. all these great 50th anniversaries that you know, when ford, you know, became president, the swearing in on august 9th, the pardon on september 8th, and there are many other key moments in the ford presidency, moments that audiences like you are resonating with. i mean, we have noticed the

uptick in attendance here. you remember those early, i said get more people to fill these seats. you have delivered and it's because president ford and mrs. ford, both of them speak to something that's profoundly needed today. well, bill addresses this and so when we were negotiating, i said, bill, what do you want to talk about? he said, gleaves, you know me. i don't know what i'm going to talk about until i get on the stage know. and so i think we narrowed it down, though, is today we spent a little time together. and i think what he's going to talk about are three things. i think he's going to talk about his latest book, america first, because ladies and gentlemen, this book, even though it takes place in the thirties and forties, the setting of the book seems that the themes of the book could have been written about today. the election on tuesday turned on how you resolve the question of what america's relationship with the world should be. so i think bill's going to talk about this book. i bill's also going to talk a

little bit about president ford, because president ford is in the midst of the same question. remember, he comes into office with basically the united states is mopping up in a major war. our first major defeat for america. and it was a tough time. and i think a lot of us in this room remember that period. and come on, america, first debate crept down again. you know, should it if this is what america's leadership in the world looks like, i think we'll take a powder. we can do without it. and then the third thing that bill, i think is going to touch on, because he is the preeminent presidential historian in our country, i think he's going to talk about the election a little bit, to put it in, not to give it a partizan flavor, but to put it in a historical perspective that will help us all understand better what's going on right now as we try to interpret these challenging times. so with that, bill brandes, please come on up.

thank you, please for that introduction in that setup. but i think there's a slight miss understanding that what i think you just said i was going to speak on this and that and that i understood it as this or that or that. you okay. well, oh, and i have to comment as well. i think you sort of channeled my mother your comment about, watching these watching these things at 2:00 in the morning, because my mom used to say that she had tried to read each of my books. and she said she finished one of them. i would say i don't think she did, but i shouldn't gainsay my mother.

but what she would say is, i have your latest book on my bed stand and i read it before going to sleep and it works perfectly. so apparently my appearances on the history channel did the same thing with glee's, but one of the one of the great things about doing a documentary on history is that the documentaries have a really long shelf life, because if you're talking about events that are already 200 years old, you know, what's another five or ten years? and so i will hear from people who say, i saw you on tv last night. i said, yeah, i get you. you're lot insomniacs, too. okay. and, you know, i really liked what you said, but but you look so much younger on there. i said, well, i was that was, you know, 20 years ago time passes. yes, time does pass. and i'm to begin, i am going to

touch on the topics at leaves mentioned. but first i want to probe your memories. i need to know a little bit about my audience any i tell this to my my students especially my graduate students who are beginning writers but any writer or speaker, anybody who tries to communicate needs to have some idea about the people that he is speaking to. and so i need to know just a little bit about what you know and maybe what you don't know. i teach at the university of texas and this semester i have mostly first and second year students. so these are students who are 18 and 19 years old, and these are students who were born. well into this century. these are students for whom while gerald ford or ronald reagan might as well be abraham lincoln, you know. so but anyway. so i'm going to ask some

questions and i don't mean to if anybody feels that i'm trying to get you to reveal your age or anything like that, you don't have to participate. but there are moments in history that sort of. that signal where we are all together at one time, for example, and maybe some. is there anybody in the room who remembers where you were and what you were doing when franklin roosevelt died? anybody okay, hillary? yep. okay. because my mom, this is one of the formative moments in my mother's life. she remembers that she was walking home with some friends from getting some ice cream and she heard the news that the president had died. and it was a really big for her because he, franklin roosevelt, was the only my mother had known

at that time. he was president for 12 years and she was in college. so he was elected the first time when she was six years old or something like that. okay. how many of you remember where were and what you were doing? how when you heard that john kennedy had been shot in 1963? okay. so now i've got an idea and i certainly do. i was in fifth grade. how many remember where you were and what you were doing when you heard the news about the 911 attack on the world trade center. okay. all right. all right. how many of you remember where you were and what you were doing when you heard gerald ford had become president? well, okay, that's more than i would have guessed. this is grand rapids, after all. but. but i remember that as well. and i mean, i knew that there were gerald ford was vice president of the united states and all this stuff.

but i grew up in oregon and i had no particular connection to gerald ford except that i didn't remember it as gerald ford becoming president. what i took note of was the fact that richard nixon had resigned. and the corollary of that, of course, was that gerald ford became president. and one of the reasons that i remember this is it occurred two days after my 21st birthday. and i was in college at the time. i was about to become a senior in college. and i remember following the watergate story for during from early 73 when it first surfaced as and then all through that. and i remember thinking, well, of course it was a little bit before this that the supreme court renders its decision in the case of does nixon have to turn over the tapes? and once the tapes are turned over, then it's pretty clear that the end is in sight and and then i in fact, my family was at

the oregon coast and on that day, i had taken my grandparents, my maternal grandparents, for a drive along the coast, and they were both getting up in age. and my grandfather was beginning to sort of slip into dementia, but he still liked a car ride. and so we went for a drive along the coast and spent the whole day. and i remember getting back to the house that we had rented for the week and hearing, and it was just about when the news was turned on and richard nixon had resigned. and the business of him in that helicopter, you know, getting on, giving the victory sign and all that, and and then and i knew enough about gerald ford to know that he seemed like a good, solid guy. and as far as i knew, he was chosen well, in part because he would be easy to confirm. and nobody wanted a controversy

over that. but he seemed to have a good record as a leader in congress and somebody who could be who could be relied upon to do the right thing. and so all seemed good. and then the question was, well, what's going to become of richard nixon? and you so were waiting. see the rest of this story. and then, of course, i don't have to tell you what happened a month later when gerald ford pardoned richard nixon. and i will tell you that my response was well, probably what you would guess of the response of a college kid. i was going to college in california. and, you know, i think, oh, my god, i thought jerry ford, you know, what are you doing? and i think, okay, well, obviously this deal was cooked. the fix was in from the beginning. and i was really disappointed about, okay, we're never going to get to the bottom of this watergate story and this is a

huge opportunity lost and you'll be aware. i mean, i'm sure you're aware that there was a great deal of disappointment and anger over this decision at the time. and and, you know, i thought and so he gave his talk about why it had to be done and what it was good for. and and how the nation needed to heal and to move on. and this is always the way of doing it. and i got to say, it took me a while to kind of come around to the idea that, well, maybe maybe he did the right thing here. and interestingly, the fact that it had this blowback effect on his career, i think most people who study presidential politics would conclude that his decision

to pardon richard nixon was principal reason that he lost the election of 1976 and he didn't have a presidential term in his own right. and paradoxically, to that effect, it sort of made me think that, well, maybe he was sincere in doing this because if he had done it for his own personal benefit, i pardon you, you make me president. well, it didn't work. you know, he sort of screwed it up and so that would have been kind of a bad deal. and then the fact that he actually had done it and it cost him his the rest of his political career. well, it kind of made me think that. all right. maybe he really was sincere about it. now, hold that thought, because i'm going to come back to that a

little bit later, because i've got actually two other topics that graves has assigned me. but i will say this, that. gerald ford became president under about the most inauspicious circumstances in the history of the presidency. maybe andrew johnson, following the assassination of abraham lincoln. maybe he had it worse. yeah, he did have it worse. the country was just ending a civil war and didn't know what to do with reconstruction and all that. but in the case of gerald ford, he was having to deal with, well, first of all, the fallout from watergate and and what it entailed for a fundamental loss of confidence in government. and i think actually a couple of years ago, i was talking about this when sort of in my first of

the talks on the ford years and the presidency, but. in american history, from the 1940s through the 1960s and certainly into the 1960s, americans perception of government was very different than what it has been for the last 40 or 50 years. people thought the government actually could do the right thing and it would probably would do the right thing. and in fact, this idea that government can do the right thing is at the basis of, well, what we can sort of generically call the liberal program of if there's a social problem, if there's a problem in society, poverty pollutes in health care, whatever it could be, look to government and government can probably solve. the government has the resources. government has the organizational capacity to do it. and so this was what under my

the great society, the civil rights reforms of the 1960s. and this consider in government was what made modern liberal america because if you start if you go back further to franklin roosevelt and the new deal and so people got the idea that government can actually do something worthwhile. people associated the new deal with improving their lives during the great depression. then along comes world war two and the government of the united states leads the united states and the democracies of the world to victory. now, that's really doing something right. so at the end of world war two, the stock of american government and public perceptions was really high and it stayed high through the 1950s and 1950 were a prosperous time. and into the 1960s and 1960s, dented it a little bit because of the riots and the over civil rights and various other things. but this confidence in government took two real hammer

blows at the end of the sixties into the 1970s, and one was the war in vietnam and the other one was watergate. and so when i'm speaking, i think for more than just myself, when i said that i was so disappointed when jerry ford pardoned richard nixon because here was the guy who was going to set things right after watergate, and then he just sort a lets nixon go. and so as i said, i eventually came around to the of view that was probably the right thing to do with a caveat that i'm still going to come back to that we'll get to but anyway from the middle of the 1970s until today, as exemplified by the election that took place just two days ago, americans do not think much of our government. and i mean donald trump had been

campaigning against the government from thank from 2015. and again this time around and he went he won by a substantial margin. so american voters are not impressed with our government and this decided contra just to the attitude, the feeling of americans toward their government from the 1930s into the early 1970s. okay. now, what did ford have to deal with? he had to deal with inflation and he had to deal with watergate. he had to deal with, well, the biggest question he had to deal with and this was, i would say, the most profound question he had to deal with was what is america's role in the world? because gerald ford became president as it was becoming clear that the united states had lost the war in vietnam, the end hadn't quite come. that would come in the spring. of 1975, the paris peace accords had pulled american troops out, and the united states was

supposed to continue to guarantee the security of south vietnam. but that wasn't going to happen because americans had decided that vietnam war has been going on too long. and so when the north vietnamese broke the truce deal and invaded south vietnam in the spring of 75, there was no political will in the united states to go back in and fight the war again. so americans are asking what is the role of the united states in the world? which brings me to the topic of my book, which is about, well, americans grappling with this very question at a time when gerald ford was a young man and he had to confront this question. and the question is, what is america's role in the world? should the united states be a leader of the world? should it be the leader of the world? and i write it in the context of the decision whether the united

states should enter world war two, except when the debate was going on. world war two was not yet world war two. there was a war europe that began in september of 1939. there was a separate war that was going on in asia. japan had invaded china actually much earlier than that. and there were these two separate wars. and americans asking themselves, is it our responsibility as americans to get involved in these wars? and when these wars began, the overwhelming view of americans was no, we should not. if you'll pardon the strong language, hell no, we should not, because we tried this once before, we went to europe during what then was called the world war, it wouldn't be called world war one until there was a second one. so the world war we went to europe, hundreds of thousands of americans went to europe during

the first world war, and they fought and the american side won on the battlefield. but the victory was spoiled at the peace conference by the greed of america's allies, the british and the french, and their unwillingness to cut any slack for germany and to impose germany an unpayable debt, basically building resentments in germany that were going to burst out sooner or later. and americans well, by the time the peace conference ended, americans were beginning to think this was really a bad idea to go in there within a few years when it became very clear that this peace deal was no peace deal at all. but again, center of future conflict, americans almost to a person said that was a really bad idea. we will not do it again. and when things got worse during the 1930s, when america was mired in depression, when the

world was mired in depression, and when a alarming new movements arose in europe, fascism in italy, ism in germany. francoism in spain and american eyes began to see, oh, there's probably another war coming. and americans, again, almost to a person, said, these are not our conflicts, these are not our problems. to the point where congress passed legislation, a series of laws in the 1930s that said if a war breaks out in a foreign country, we're not going to get involved. basically mandating that the president not do anything that would get the united states involved, because americans remember, too, how the united states got into world war one, that woodrow wilson took step after step after step, getting a little bit closer to war, a little bit closer to war until all the germans concluded, well, the americans are effectively at

war, so we might as well start sinking their ships and americans overwhelmingly said we're not going to do that again. and they cited american history. george washington, the historically minded of them, said, warned us in his farewell address against getting involved in the affairs. if you're he said, stick with america as affairs do not become attached to foreign nations. we've got enough to do minding our own business. and this had been america's for the nearly century and a half since george washington and there was that one exception during world war one. but americans quickly said, oh, that was a mistake, we won't do it again. so americans in the mid 1930s were what i'll use the term because it's so commonly used. but you should be aware that people the term is isolate asian ism and isolationist. you should be aware that people who were called didn't call

themselves isolationist because it suggests that you ignore what happens in the world. it's suggests that you are trying to isolate america. no, in fact, what the isolationist wanted was we just don't want to deliberately, egregiously stick ourselves in other people's problems. we want to trade with the world. we want to be able to travel in the world. but we don't necessarily think that the defense of france is america's problem or the demands of britain is america's problem. let the french do yours. let the british deal with it. and it's important to note again, i can't stress it too much. this was the thinking of 95% of americans in the 1930s, and it seemed at the most obvious thing in the world. why would we want to do that? so this is the background for my story, my title, my book is america first. that's the label of the most

prominent war group of the period before world war two. and the subtitle is roosevelt versus lindbergh in the shadow of war and the shadow of war of war. that's the shadow of is the war that has broken out in europe. so my story unfolds as between september 1939 and december 1941. so this two year and four month period when really for the first time in american history there is this trenchant debate over what is america's role in the world. now narrowly speaking, the debate was over do we send military aid to britain and france or do we modify the neutrality legislation so that belligerents can purchase weapons from the united states

or? do we allow american nationals to sail on ships of countries at war? these were these were provisions of the neutrality legislation. you know, you can't do that because that's how the united states got into world war one. and the protagonist of my story, i can't help it when i write history. i write history focusing on individuals. i can't write broad sort of social history. i can't write history unless i can find people to focus on, unless i can hear the people talking less, i can convey their messages through their words and the protagonists i choose are franklin roosevelt. he's an obvious character. he is president of the united states. charles lindbergh is a less likely individual because he wasn't an elected official. he held no while he was a colonel in the air force air

corps reserve. so that but he became most promise and the most prominent spokesman for the anti war position. and so i recount the debate and in doing so in doing so i have to i have to somehow get my readers. i have to get you since you're my audience today, to forget what you know about how this turned out okay. and the reason i have to do this is because you know how it turned out, because you know that the united states did get involved in world war two and because you know that world war two turned out well for the united states and it led to this era of american leadership in the world. and most americans came to think

that's a pretty good idea they kind of like the idea of the united states as number one. i'll tell you because i have to take you back. if somebody had said in 1935, do you think the united states must be number one in the world? they said, what in the world are you talking about, number one? what does that mean? and if it means what i think you mean. no, we don't want that at all because it means that we're going to be responsive all for the crazy things that other people do. we have trouble enough minding our own business. so anyway, what i had to get you to do is forget that you know, that that's how it turned out, because at the time the lindbergh position don't want that leadership. we want what george washington often wanted for us mind our own business, defend our own shores. that's most americans wanted, but of course, that's not the way it happened. and most americans became happy

with the way things turned out. oh, and oh. and i should add that this position of american leadership is one that has really it took hold. it took hold really as soon as americans. well, hillary. no wait, i didn't ask this question. how hillary, do you remember where you when you heard of the attack on pearl harbor? okay. all right. well, needless to say, everybody of that age, they knew that. and that was the moment, by the way, when the debate ended. the debate ended not because franklin roosevelt, who was in favor of intervention, sort of won on points. he didn't prove to be the better debater. he won because the japanese attacked the united states and japan was an ally of germany. and that meant that the united states was at war regardless what where the debate went. so anyway, from that point,

until today, no, not until today. until two days ago. until two days ago this that the united states should be the leader of the world had been just accepted wisdom to the point where it's hard to get anybody to take charles lindbergh. and his argument seriously. they are labeled he's labeled isolationist. and what is an isolation is an isolationist. well, the editorial cartoon is the isolationist is that ostrich with its head stuck in the sand and the world is going to hell all around and the ostrich is just ignoring all that. that's what that's that's why the isolationist. didn't call themselves isolationist. they call themselves noninterventionist. they call themselves war. they call themselves america first, america's first obligation is to america. and but because things turned out the way they did, because the united states. i'm going to say because the

united states won world war two. but i have to point out that that's an exaggeration. it flatters the united states most of, well, two thirds of the casualties inflicted on the army of germany were not inflicted by the american army and inflicted by the soviets. okay. so the soviet union thought we won world war two, which also complicates this story. and i have to i will admit, i like complicating things. i like things complicated hearted, but when americans think we won the war and they think, well, somebody like charles lindbergh was wrong in saying, you know, we shouldn't go to war, it's not in america's interest. one of the things that he said was, you know, if we go to war by franklin roosevelt, we're saying we have to go to war to defend democracy. and lindbergh said, wait a minute, wait a minute, who are we going to go to war with? we're going to go to war with

britain. is britain a democracy? well, kind of in britain. but what about in india? what about in the rest, the british empire? we're going to go to war if we go to war, it will be to defend british imperialism. is that what you want? well, that's not what you're hearing from frank and roosevelt, but that's what it will be about. and then and then in the summer of 1941, this is six months before pearl harbor, germany attacks the soviet union. and now the united states begins begins sending aid to the soviet union. and lindbergh said a war for democ racy. wait a minute. we're fighting on the side of the communists. and he went on to say, you know, if we go back into europe, we'll never get out. we went in once and got out. but if we go in a second time, we will be there forever and well. where are we today? so this is this is kind of my point, but there was one moment.

there was one moment during this long period from. december six, december seventh, 1941, to two days ago, where it seemed that the united states might no longer feel obliged to be the leader of the world. the united states might no longer feel that it's in america's best interests to say that frontiers of democracy are where ever democracy or aggression occurs, and that was when gerry ford was president, because you may remember this, but in the wake of vietnam, a lot of people said, you know, this how did we get into vietnam? well, we got into vietnam kind of by the same reasoning that we got into korea. and it was based on the idea and this was the argument that franklin roosevelt was making in

promoting the idea of intervention. the united states must be the of the world that there is this between democracy and autocracy. the world is divided into these two camps. and we have to strengthen the camp of democracy so wherever aggression occurs, we have to be prepared to combat it. and that led to the war in korea, which, if you will recall, some of you perhaps turned out unsatisfactory for the united states after victory in world war one, korea was this ugly tie. a lot of americans died in korea and nothing was different than before the war. and then comes vietnam and vietnam wasn't just a tie. vietnam was a defeat. and americans began to say and in fact, jimmy carter say, we had to rethink this, you know, because if being the leader of

the world means that we send hundreds of thousands of americans troops, thousands of miles from home and lose tens of thousands of them. and what ultimately turned out to be a failed effort to defeat a nationalist uprising, well, maybe that's not the right policy. you may remember that one of the big fights jerry ford had as president was with the conservative wing of his own party of the republicans because he was vice president to richard nixon and richard nixon was the author of detente. remember detente. detente was the idea that the united states could live with soviet communism until then, the belief had been either democracy or communism was going to win. they couldn't coexist. but detente was all about peaceful coexistence, by the way, i will add this when germany was on the brink of

apparently of defeating when it did defeat france in 1940, this is back to the earlier debate, he said that the united states might have to learn to live with dictators and franklin roosevelt and roosevelt's allies said what an insane thing to say. what a malicious thing to say, to learn, to live with dictators. well, that's exac only what richard nixon said, what they taught and among republican concerns, there were some hawkish democratic conservatives as well. he said detente, is a terrible idea. we need to sort of get back on the ball and just fight the next vietnam war better instead of avoiding the next vietnam war. and this became a big issue. and ultimately the hawkish side won on richard nixon as i'm sorry, when ronald reagan became president. so there was that window in the middle where americans like,

wait a minute, maybe this decision that we made in the early 1940s to abjure isolationism and embrace interventionism and world leadership. maybe we ought to rethink that. and one of the reasons one of the reasons the jury for it didn't win in 76 was he had pardoned richard. another reason he didn't win it was that he was challenged from the right in his own party by ronald reagan, saying this detente stuff, you're too soft on communism. okay now. i'm referring to events of two days ago, the election of. 2024 was unusual and essentially it was unique in the following. it was the first time since 1940 when franklin roosevelt was running for a third term, a a precedent setting third term on

the platform of more aid to the countries at work on the platform of america the needs to be the leader of the world and charles lindbergh was not his opponent, but he was the most visible critic of roosevelt during this period. and so americans had this choice. do you think america needs to be number one and needs to defend democracy everywhere around the world or are you willing to believe that north america and maybe south america, too, is big enough sphere for the united states and we should focus our energies on making america and society, american life, the american better here, instead of squandering our energies and resources on people in countries far away, that was a fundamental question in 1940. well, for the first time since 1940, in 2024, americans had a

choice because between 1940 and 2024, essentially eight, every candidate, every nominee of both parties took the position that the united states is and must remain the leader of the world. now, i'm going to pause for a moment and ask you a question. it's a question i posed to my students. so suppose we were having a presidential election and there were two candidates and you were kind of undecided between the two candidates. so your thinking the two candidates are basically be the same except one point on one issue candidate eight a says the united states is the greatest country in the world. the united states should adopt a foreign policy commensurate with that greatness. elect me and the united states will be the leader of the world. the united states is number one and must remain number one. that's candidate a candidate b

says number one. now, that's not that big a deal. we don't need to be number one. we don't to be the greatest country in the world in the way you're talking about. we can be great by having the best economy, the best health care, the best schools, the best stuff at home. but we don't to show our greatness by sending our armies around the world. if we focus on i don't really care if world says, oh, you're number two or you're number four and number five. okay, so candidate a says, we're number one. candidate b says, you know, four or five that be fine if that's all you know about the two candidates, who do you think's going to win the election? well, historically, it's been the person who said we're going to be number one because america is great and we'll do that. if you like me. and essentially, well, so americans, they didn't have that

choice because everybody wanted to say america is going to be we're going to continue america's leadership until until donald trump came along. and donald trump is the first presidential candidate to propose seriously a rethinking of this. now, when he was running in 2016, he didn't didn't lead with this, but he had been making to this effect. but this time around as having having been president having challenged the basis, for example, of naito and of america's commitments to the world and having said, you know, that idea of free trade by i should point out that free trade one of the underpinnings of whole scheme of america leading the world because it would lead the world by example and the world would be knitted together economic. or it wouldn't go to war militarily. and donald trump, as the president openly campaign on let's have tariffs, let's engage in an open tariff war with other

countries like china and. we will beat them and we will make all our stuff ourselves. we will retreat into this economic zone of our own. and america will be great in that regard. now, kamala harris, vice president harris, she essentially adopted the position of joe biden, president biden and the hallmark of that position is and still is, at least until now, american aid to ukraine in ukraine's war against russia. now, charles would have said and the anti-armor of engineers would have said if the united states gets involved in this european war in 1939, 1940, there's no end to it. and we will be fighting wars in europe forever and ever. and he would have said, yeah, he'll probably come out like this. and ukraine and, franklin roosevelt said, no, no, no, no. that's sort of thing is not

going to happen. but if lindbergh were around today he said, well, that's exactly what this policy to and donald trump has said this is not a good policy for the united states. and the striking thing about the election of 2024 was, as i say, the two candidates had these strikingly different views about what america position in the world ought to be. and, of course, donald won. now, a question that's going to follow this is your state. you say stuff, candidates say stuff during campaigns and then what do they do after they become president? so what's the follow through. i can guarantee you i mean, i know this because i was reading newspapers today that leaders of other nato countries, they're saying, okay, what in the world does this? does it mean the united states pulling out of nato's. i will tell you because spokesman for the russian

government has said we want you know, this is this is going to be a really change in things. and and so the united states is not going to be trying to impose its liberal western order on europe. and the united states is going to allow the creation of these zones. the world and russia will have its zone in america. we're not going to bother america in their zone in the americas. so it's unclear. it's unclear to what extent this question what's america's role? the world guided voters, when they went to the polls on tuesday and early voting days before. i'm i'd be surprised if there are very many voters who said that's the number issue for me. however, however, it did contribute to world views and for those people who voted for donald trump. and i suspect there's some of you in the room who did i you can ask yourself. if so, how much of your for donald trump was based on agreement with his position that ukraine's war against russia is

not america's war. and now i should add here, i mean, that's what charles lindbergh would have said. charles also would have said that israel's war against iran and hamas. that's not america's war either. and so to expect consistency among politicians and candidates is a bit too much, perhaps. but but anyway, i'm going to stop there and see if you have any questions. but i touched all three. right. okay. all right. so. and i invite objections, rebuttals, questions whatever it might be. and it can be about history can be about charles lindbergh. it can be about jerry ford, it can be about the recent election and what's going to happen after that.

questions? yes. aside, gerald ford himself, our vintage fans and blurbs, but perhaps most notable speech on the isle of grand rapids in march. he makes it endure. walk free because he was a part of every salvation war world. yes. so vandenberg has a cameo appearance because. oh, sorry. yes. the question is, does arthur vandenberg figure largely in my story because he was the most prominent isolationist certainly from western michigan and he was a prominent isolationist. in fact, when he changed his mind after world war two and came out in support of naito and american engagement of the world, that was a really big deal. and so does he in my book. yes, but very briefly. only because. well, i've set it as this debate between roosevelt and lindbergh. and i say enough about other

people on both sides of that debate to let my readers know there are other people on the two sides of the debate. but i don't by any means kind of run down. i certainly don't equal treatment to everybody who is on the anti-interventionist side or on the interventionist side. yeah, but but he's a key figure is probably more important in the formation policy after the war because when so when harry truman is presenting to leaders of congress, what's going to become the truman doctrine and getting the united states involved in the affairs of the world. so he presents this to these leaders of congress, and he's asking for money to support this policy. and vandenberg and others say, well, you may you may get your money, but to do it, you're going to have to scale, scare hell out of the american people. and this is what truman proceeds to do.

and when vandenberg the arch isolationist comes around in, support of american engagement in europe, then that makes it a bipartisan in policy. and bipartisan policy is the ones that have the greatest lasting power. other questions. yes you have to man manned intervention and it's the noninterventionist perspective in the thirties and. today's geopolitics. what those points. okay so the position of the interventionist. oh sorry. yes. so the question is, can i summarize the arguments and the strongest arguments for intervention and for non intervention in the 1930s and forties and then do the same today. yeah. okay. so the case that franklin roosevelt made was that in the modern world, america can longer isolate itself if that what happens, europe will affect the united states that george

washington's advice was sound in 7996 when the farewell address was published. but this is not that world. and if the united states does not respond to aggression in europe, the aggression will come to the united states. okay. so this was the argument he made and he bolstered it with claims that, okay, airplanes can fly from europe to the americas, drop bombs. he was exaggerating things. he bolstered it with what turns out to have been a forged map, showing that the german the nazis had already divided up in their minds the nazi ruled zones of the western hemisphere. and he presents map in a speech that he gives and it turns out that it was manufactured by the british government as part of their propaganda. so but but but this is the argument he makes. but basically the argument he made was it was essentially the

argument that woodrow had made and that is that aggression against, democracy anywhere threatens democracy everywhere. and especially by 1941, american leaders were regretting that they had not encouraged the european leaders to stand up to hitler at. there was a conference in munich in 1938, and it had to do with hitler's demands. a part of czechoslovakia. and the after the fact thinking was that that was the time when the democracies should have and could have stood up to hitler. and if they done so, it would have called hitler's bluff. and probably the german themselves would have overthrown him because he was asking much. so that's the argument of the interventionist side, the argument of the anti side is that, first of all, europe is a

continent that has always been at war. and if we go into europe now, we will continue to be in their wars. they will have learned that they could get themselves in trouble and they cry out to america, rescue us and america did the first time around. and if they get them all they did themselves in trouble the second time around, and they cry to america, come rescue us. and if america does the time around world, then they figured we've got the americans on a string and so we won't bother to defend. america will, defend us. so that's argument. and i should point out that lindbergh and the other so-called isolationists, they were by no means anti war in print. simple they were by no means

opposed to building up america's defenses. lindbergh had idea, which is quite audacious, that the united states should declare a security perimeter around the western hemisphere, and the united states should establish force if necessary. air bases and naval bases up and down both coasts of north and south america. and whether the south republics agree or not, the united states is going to put them in there so that so that a foreign enemy like nazi germany cannot get a foothold. the western hemisphere and this is the way we will defend the western hemisphere. but the frontier of the united states is 200 miles off the american coast, not on the rhine river in germany. okay. so those are the arguments back then. now the arguments today, the arguments today are similar, but they are different technologically of add a little bit to the argument of the anti-interventionist.

the 1930s. but first, i'll have to say that roosevelt, the interventionist, said air power changes things because now planes can fly, they can inflict great damage on the united states and lindbergh. the antidote or vengeance, who is also america's leading authority on air power. he knew the air forces of all the world because just to remind you, he became famous for flying across the atlantic. and so he had done things, a plane nobody else had done on the strength of this. he was invited by every country to come look at their latest aircraft and offer suggestions is how they can be made better. and so he knew what kind of planes the british had and the french and the germans and the russians and the japanese and everybody. and he said this idea that somehow air power changes militaries strategy and gives an advantage the attacker of the united states. this is ludicrous, he said. in fact, just the opposite is

the consequence. because before airplanes before air power, if the germans wanted to invade united states, assuming it somehow got into their heads, then they would put soldiers on ships and the ships would sail up against to american shores. and that's when the united states would be able to begin firing at them. when they got within coastal gun range. he said now with planes, we can hit them when they're still hundred miles off american shores. america is better defended in. the age of air power. okay, now that prediction, or at least that assessment did not even survive world war two, because by the end of world war two, planes could fly thousands of miles. lindbergh and essentially, nobody foresaw the atom bomb. and how you could inflict this sudden and tremendous damage on a country. so that that would change things. but the intervention argument or call it, i'll call it the neo

roosevelt in argument today is that there are bad people are bad regimes in the world. and in fact, the biden administration and people who that way talk about axis of authoritarianism them and they line up russia, iran, china and, north korea and these are the bad people and they use the term they borrow it from world war two when the original axis was germany, japan, italy. and so they're drawing direct connections. they want people to get those connections. and so make the argument that if russia can defeat ukraine. then that will somehow help iran crush, israel one day and will encourage china to invade taiwan. now it's kind of a leap of logic that china's policy is to depend

on the outcome of the war in ukraine. but this the argument to resonate and therefore more so the biden administration taking position that the government of china is watching. and if the united states does not follow through on its commitment to ukraine, then taiwan is a greater risk and. the north koreans will get emboldened and they might try to invade south korea and japan will be at risk. and america's alliances around the world will fall pieces. so that remains the argument for. american engagement in places and conflicts, faraway the anti-interventionist argument today is that there is no end to the number of places the united states could engage. and for america to mortgage its future on what vladimir decides to do tomorrow, what kim jong un decides to do tomorrow, this is silly. you cannot control people who are beyond your control. and even if the united states could assist, for example, in

ukraine's efforts to hold off russian advances, suppose ukraine wins this war. well, russia is still going to be a very large country with a very long border next to and the russians still consider that ukraine ought to be part of the united states. and so unless unless well, and this is exactly what lindbergh said, unless the united states is determined to defend ukraine forever, then you just got to cut your losses. and i've been very good have said and i'll go there in the first place. this is exactly what it's going to lead to. and he would have said, for example, with the war in afghanistan. okay it's understandable. the united states invaded afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. 911. we had to clear out al qaida training camps. but for the united states to be there for years and, you know, nothing good comes of it, you

afghanistan after 20 years is no better off. and it was at the beginning and billions and billions of american dollars and thousands of american lives have been expended on this. what lindbergh is saying is, once you start down this path and i would say that this argument still hold for the anti-interventionist. once you start down this path, there is no end to it. i'll add something that in 1941, the united states far and away the leading economic power in the world. this was even more true by 1945, when germany, japan had been flattened. so in 1945, and i'll say this with only slight exaggeration, that from 1945 until the beginning of the 21st century, america lived, in an age of what i will call free security, free in the following sense that, never did. american policymakers say, you know who should we go into

vietnam or not? should we go into the persian gulf in early 1990s or not? they never said, well, we shouldn't because it's going to be too expensive. americans got used to the idea of having guns and butter, both. but a america is by no means the leader in the world economy today than it was in 1945. america's economic throw weight, basically america's industrial gdp in 1945 equaled the rest of the world combined. so america could try to do all this stuff and conceivable do it. oh, except i'll point out one thing that the wars after world war two have not been uniform successes for the united states. now they come out of the same mindset. but vietnam, obviously, korea. well, that was an unsatisfactory tie. vietnam was a loss. the war in the persian gulf oc it was a little bitty war and it

momentarily ended in victory. but it led to the war against iraq in 2003, and that was a mess. and the war in afghanistan was a loss that took 20 years to realize was a loss. so the anti-interventionist was, say, this is what you're up to when you say america is number one and america has to defend the rest of the world. now, i mean, i could on with other things on argue arguments on both sides but the economic question is a bigger deal although neither side is saying we can't afford to do this stuff, but americans are increasing going to have to make a choice between. do we spend billions on foreign and maybe fighting other people's wars or do we fund social security or medicare? these weren't issues in 1945. social security was in its infancy. medicare didn't exist. but americans have come to expect more of our government domestically.

and so it's taking that might have been used for foreign policy away. and americans are going to be making that decision and perhaps some of that influence the vote on tuesday how are we doing on time? yes. one more question. okay. i guess the single biggest institution. in goldman sachs for you boil water over here. what was the nonprofessional assure you of that? in the course of our. okay. so this is a very interesting question. the assertion is that the oil embargo against japan was the principal trigger that got the united states involved in war two. and i agree with that up to a point. and the point is that when the united states placed an oil embargo against japan, it pretty much guaran that japan would strike out against united states. i will say this and i was i actually a bit surprised by the fact that the debate over

american entry into what's going to become world war two had almost nothing to do with policy toward japan. it was all focused, 98% focused on what was going on in europe. and part of this was because as well, europe has always been visible to americans. many more americans have ancestral roots in europe than have roots in japan. japan is far away. the war in japan was not well covered in the american press or on american radio. one of the features of my book is these are transcripts of the radio shows of edward r murrow, who was saying, okay, this is the battle of britain. and explain the bombings that were coming down. so americans were really aware of the war in europe to a way into a degree that they weren't aware of the war against the war in japan. but then as to the embargo itself and its effect on getting the united states into the war. yes, it was the trigger, but it was the trigger getting the

united states involved in a war against japan. franklin roosevelt wanted a war against germany. now, part of my story is that franklin roosevelt wanted a war against germany because he believed that's the way the united states would assert its power in the world. and germany was the threat in europe. and that's that's where the fight's going to be. i should add what he wanted, but he consistently denied that's what he wanted. he said each of these steps is to send arms to the british, to send ships to the british, to send lend-lease aid to the british. the whole point at roosevelt is we send arms to the europeans so we don't have to send american troops to europe. well, that's really that's not what he intended. in fact, just before the 1940 election, just days before the election, he said if elect me, i will not send your sons to fight in a foreign war. now, his son, james, his eldest, his adult son, james, later

called dad out on this. he said, dad, how could you say such a thing? you knew that we were going to go to war. you wanted us go to war. and james writes about this in his memoir, years later. and and roosevelt says, by james's account, he said, james, yeah, i knew we were going to go to war, but i couldn't tell the american people that because as soon as i said, we're going to go to war, then my rivals make my political enemies. they would say, he's going to take us to war. he wants take us to war. he wants to take us to war. and he said, you kid give your political enemies that of ammunition. now, because roosevelt was going to let events fall in place, one after the other, and gets back to the question. roosevelt was determined he would have had his war against germany because the united navy was all ready, engaged in skirmishes. the atlantic and there was one

involving a ship called the greer, which roosevelt claims is an unprovoked attack by a german submarine on this american vessel. the american vessel was peaceful steaming along, and all of a sudden these some these torpedoes and this submarine come and hit them. and this wasn't actually how it happened at all. the greer was providing guidance to british planes and british ships who were dive bombing and depth charging this german submarine. and the submarine actually couldn't tell that this was an american ship. the british ship was the one that was doing the firing. but as far as the germans knew that was this joint operation. and so it was in fact, i was i was mentioning just the other day and somebody said, oh, i get it. this is roosevelt's version of the gulf of tonkin incident, where you you make it up anyway. so roosevelt was going to have a cause of war.

there was going to be something that would trigger the war. in fact, when the japanese attacked pearl harbor, it gave roosevelt three days of real handwringing because had wanted a war against germany. and what he got was a war against japan. and he thought, oh, my gosh, this makes things worse because. as congress had been reluctant to declare war against germany. but now the united states been attacked by japan, and it had no choice. so congress immediately that is the next day, declared war against japan. and roosevelt saying, well, okay, i can i talk congress into just out of the blue declaring another war. you know, and we got one on our hands. another one. and so didn't know what was going to happen. but after three days, after 72 hours, hitler kind of out of the blue declares war on the united states. and historians have sort of puzzled people at time, puzzled.

why did he do it? and the answer is, well, he understood roosevelt well enough know that roosevelt would get his war sooner or later. and hitler, i guess, wanted strike the first blow or at least make the first declaration. so by this time, there would have been war that the precipitant was the japanese attack on pearl harbor, but that wasn't really the cause. the underlying cause was deeper. and it was roosevelt's belief that the united states that american interests required a war against germany. anyway, thank you very much. fell prey to a very much uranium here. you have to realize. how he's built, how you funded. we've been having come back for

two decades now, often to this stage to enlighten and to entertain, you know, president ford, when asked if to go back there was classes at the university of michigan. they're in focus on different courses. in the light of his career. what forces would need to emphasize? he said two kinds of courses. i would focus on more rhetoric courses, public presentations and speaking, and i would focus on history. and i think in bill we have a demonstration. both of those skills, the passion and the energy of the rhetoric is, of course, but the historic knowledge is stunning. you ask bill just about any question on any historical topic and got a great perspective on it. he's sort of minimizes the ideal of a liberally educated person who can handle what is on the table. well, that's what i like to think that we do here.

you know, brooke, with her great staff at the presidential museum, i'll sing praises of of our great staff also at the gerald ford presidential foundation. together, we work to bring you these kinds of programs. we're very proud it because we think in this of democracy, there are a lot of answers to today's questions. you look at those two people on the wall and they have a lot of answers to what we face today. that's what bill's whole talk was about in his magisterial, what he does in and day out at the university of texas. what he does at some 50 public presents a year, he presents the context of the challenges we have today and what we have to do to meet them. now, this is where my pitch comes in. how many you in here are not a

friend of ford. our official membership program. raise your hand. don't be shy. that little bit higher. oh, okay, sir. we got count about five or six of you. okay. outside these doors is an envelope and a little cheat sheet that tells you the different levels. i don't care what level you come in. join friends, ford. bring your neighbors. we need this place. we need brooks. exhibits more than ever. right. we're going to do that that. now. there's something else out in that lobby that i want you to think about. and is this book. bill's here to sign what you're going to be purchasing this great holiday for? it's coming right up. just think you could get most of your holiday taken care of in one night by purchasing this and have them personally signed to your loved one or to yourself?

yeah. give yourself a holiday gift. why not? the last thing that would like to do is we just inaugurated. the last time we met, you'll recall it was with hagmaier and we had hagmaier and richard norton smith with us. and by the way, richard norton smith, i want to add, this is one thing, richard smith, our predecessor, brooke and me, famously said, and i can't tell you how many times i it when it comes to there is no excuse for a boring history lecture paper article or book. right. can we agree that. no excuse for boring. and so in bill we guarantee am-t as we say in texas you'll never get bored listening bill. but because you've been such a good audience, you've come here and you've been supportive. we've inaugurated sort of a new tradition here at the ford. we give out a gerald ford gift to our friends ford.

somebody is going to be lucky enough to win. what's in this bag? i'm not going to tell you what it is, but bill got -- in here, too. so i ask you to determine the winner. how many books do you think? bill brandes has published? shout it out. 1150. 1130. who said? 33 year och higher. lower than 30. 23. 43. 16. who said? 37? okay. you. just very good. going all the way back. bill's publishing books since 1988. going all the way to his doctoral dissertation. and it was on eisenhower that he turned that dissertation into book. and so you had a good one. how did you know that? i said, all right, well, that's a good answer. okay, very good.

okay. well, this is our last program for what has, been a great fall and it's been a great because we have incredible material. the source documents, the material, the lives of character of president and mrs. ford because we're about virtue at the helm character at the helm here. and it's also been great because of coming into all of these programs we've had since august 9th, when president ford came to the white house 50 years ago. we have great lineup this coming winter and spring and we look forward to seeing you there. have a good evening. thank you so much. great to see